I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Criminal Justice
-
Ahhh Bossk.
I’m so proud of you today. I have to hand it to you - you done some good arguing.
I generally consider myself a bit of a blue liberal, but i have to admit, i’m with you. I’d much rather that some criminal spent an extra week out of jail then me spending an extra week IN jail.
Also i agree with the whole “jury of your peers” bit. It brings things to life. In Manitoba, if a doctor is accused of malpractice, the question is “would other similar physicians agree with the accused’s actions”? The 12 men and women on the street have their hand on the pulse of society much better than a judge. Also i do not think that they are all like “12 angry men”. I’ve a few friends who’ve served on juries - they seem to take their duties quite seriously. As for judges - i wonder if one exists who hasn’t had several of their rulings overturned? How many of them would have the same perspective of 12 other people?
Also i agree with the whole “illegal search and seizure” thing. Certainly some people to manage to get off because the cops did not follow proceedure and were over-zealous in obtaining evidence. For me this is not as worrysome as if an innocent person was convicted because of a mistake made by a police officer.
As for the death penalty - that’s been debated on other threads here. I agree with you here as well:- there is no proof that this actually decreases crime (the opposite happens, in fact)
- its also been shown that juries are less likely to convict if they know that someone will get the death penalty (the problem with juries i guess - stupid citizens having hearts all of a sudden)
- too many death row sitters have been demonstrated to be innocent and exhonerated (and too many post-mortem). Even in my small city there have been a couple accused and convicted of what would be considered capital crimes in the States wrongfully
Having said all of this, i guess i could be taken to task for believing that child molesters should be kept in the general prison population . . . :wink:
Also i agree that augmenting the government’s power does make it more authoritarian. A close check needs to be maintained on the police and state officials. These checks that our friend despises i believe are a few important steps between 1920-1990’s Russia and western civilization.
Don’t get me wrong - i’m no anarchist.
-
I feel that the point of the movie “12 Angry Men” has been missed. If those men had been sole judges 11 of them would have convicted the innocent defendent. OK so they were not professional judges, but they all had their individual biases. The jury system is far from perfect, hopefully there will be at least one juror #8 in any jury. Otherwise you are hoping you don’t get a judge who has a bias, or is in a bad mood.
-
Tempers flare ….
Sure, it may take longer to obtain a search warrant and the criminal will get away with the evidence before the police show up. But if the police really think someone is doing something illegal, how difficult will it be for them to get a small bit of evidence to present to a judge who will then get them the warrant? I believe that no matter whose house the police search, they will find SOMEthing illegal (except mine of course), a taped baseball game, a copy of Lord of the Rings on a burnt CD, cuban cigars, illegal mp3 files, office supplies or that altar for human sacrifice. So if you removed the need for a warrant, people would be fearing a knock on their doors 24 hours a day, because (let´s face it) people are not going to stop being criminal - that´s just communism!
A jury of REAL peers (murderers judging a murderer, drugdealers judging a drugdealer etc.) will never convict anyone, so you´re left with the soccer moms and such. These people may be more easily swayed by retoric and fancy testimonies, so that in the end, they give the verdict to the guy with the flashier presentation. And does anyone really believe that it´s possible to ignore some piece of evidence even after the judge says: “The jury will disregard that comment (or whatever)”? A group of judges would probably be less problematic than a jury of “peers”.
The death penalty will do nothing. The y have the death penalty in many muslim countries for much smaller crimes than murder. They chop peoples hands off for stealing. Have people stopped stealing or murdering? No. Your sense of justice may be greater if a guy gets the chair, though …
-
Some points to add…
Well, i am with bossk and CC on all points except the jury system. For dubya: The biased judge is something you cannot avoid, that’s why the higher courts over here have more than one judge (so a jury of judges and not of peers). For the bad mood, that’s why trials take longer than an hour, but several days.For Janus: Principiis obsta !
If you say “well my system is flawless, it is the humans that make it bad”, then you are naive, and you must be a communist and proponent of freedom to bear any arms, etc. Effectively, you must be an anarchist!
No rules is absolute freedom, it’s just the people that will misuse this freedom and make the system fail! -
Having a jury composed entirely of your peers to convict the defendent is not always possible, ie: military tribunals.
-
cc,you made some valid points about the death penalty. but your points are specifically tailored to the current criminal justice system, which i think should be changed.
-
cc,you made some valid points about the death penalty. but your points are specifically tailored to the current criminal justice system, which i think should be changed.
possibly (i am also pro-life for other philosophical reaosons - much stronger in my mind, but difficult for me to effectively communicate).
The problem is that your changes to illegal search and seizure etc. would make it easier to get a possibly false conviction. Note that people wrongfully convicted of murder are oftentimes done so because of an overly keen police force. Removing citizen’s rights as you propose would open up possibilities for increased police powers which may well (and easily) be abused. Note: i am not against the police and i am proud of the men in blue in Winnipeg (working in the hospital clues you in to what they have to endure). At the same time, this whole over-policing business is a little bizaare and unnecessary (like arresting people for smoking marijuana HA!) -
well cc, i wouldnt bring up the marijuana, because im for arresting people for smoking marijuana, not because i think its such a serious crime, but because i am so against marijuana. but i see your point. id like to add however, that while obviously there would be more room for abuse of power by the police, i think that on a whole, the police are not corrupt, or overzealous, but dedicated and diligent. naturally some may abuse the power, but clearly with the plethora of cases against police for many various things, there is no lack of that now.
-
well cc, i wouldnt bring up the marijuana, because im for arresting people for smoking marijuana, not because i think its such a serious crime, but because i am so against marijuana. but i see your point. id like to add however, that while obviously there would be more room for abuse of power by the police, i think that on a whole, the police are not corrupt, or overzealous, but dedicated and diligent. naturally some may abuse the power, but clearly with the plethora of cases against police for many various things, there is no lack of that now.
you see, i’m not saying that they are not dedicated and diligent. The problem may be that some of them are TOO dedicated and diligent. They have this feeling/instinct about their suspect, and “BINGO” is his name-o. Next thing you know people are sneaking into people’s houses blah blah blah.
Also there is a marijuana thread - if you care to revive it. -
Something that Janus really should think of is the follwong by Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.The above of course is meant for political tolerance, but to make the above possible, you also need quite a police state, where you have the possibility to “create” the verdict you want by any means. And that second is something you would allow. Policemen are human. They are jealous, strife for strange goals, etc, like all of us. They are not better nor worse than the other humans. Still, you’d like give them the power to legally put whoever they want into jail for more or less whatever time they want. Even if there are only a few exploiting that…. then have a look: Not everyone of the people is a criminal, that’s also only a few. I don’t think that the average policeman here or in the US is so much better
than the average policeman in say Chile during Pinochet, etc.
I must say: You do not appear like you really have thought of all the consequences. And thinking of consequences should always include not to think of the good things that may happen, but the bad things that could happen.I prefer one criminal running around free to one innocent in jail!
-
i’d prefer 10 criminals running around to 1 innocent in jail!
(especially if i’m the innocent!)
(especially if the 10 are marijuana users!) -
but what if those ten are murders?
and what if those murderers do commit their crimes again?
-
well falk, once again, you make some valid points. but think about this, mind you, this is something i got somewhere, i do not know from where, and im not sure of the original wording, but it went something like this
“for a society to succeed, the needs of the one must be subordinate to the needs of the many” or something like that. basically, one innocent person sitting in jail is, in my mind at least, a small price to pay for keeping criminals off the streets. and Falk, i have thought of most (probably not all) consequences, good and bad, that would come of this, and i think the good far outweigh the bad -
Jan_,
That’s Spock from Star Trek:TOS. (Heh-heh!)Twelve Angry Men is a great movie. Now ya talkin’!
Death penalty is a “no go” for me. I prefer life in prison without parole, but also without a lot of the frills, too. No heavy workouts, limited TV, NO conjuggling(sex with someone from outside the prison. I find it funny that men will repeatedly have sex with men inside prisons and not consider themselves bi-sexual after having homosexual encounters!) Rehabilitation is a crock. If they want to change they will. It’s like trying to get an alcoholic to stop drinking. They will when they hit bottom(bounce back or die.)
-
@Anonymous:
but what if those ten are murders?
and what if those murderers do commit their crimes again?
that would all suck
But what if it rained Coke Slurpees? Then things would be cold and sticky. Then just sticky.
So what? -
@El:
Jan_,
That’s Spock from Star Trek:TOS. (Heh-heh!)Twelve Angry Men is a great movie. Now ya talkin’!
Death penalty is a “no go” for me. I prefer life in prison without parole, but also without a lot of the frills, too. No heavy workouts, limited TV, NO conjuggling(sex with someone from outside the prison. I find it funny that men will repeatedly have sex with men inside prisons and not consider themselves bi-sexual after having homosexual encounters!) Rehabilitation is a crock. If they want to change they will. It’s like trying to get an alcoholic to stop drinking. They will when they hit bottom(bounce back or die.)
for many the “having sex” is a dominance thing. They do not consider this an affront to their heterosexuality, but a way to dominate utterly another man.
-
There are conflicting views on whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
Here’s an opposing view to my take on capital punishment ripped from todays’s daily rag regarding the arrest of a suspect in the killing of Holly Jones:But I think U.S. professor John McAdams from Marquette University sums it up perfectly:
“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers,” he said “If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.”
The death penalty is the only appropriate level of denunciation for first-degree murder. It says in no uncertain terms that as a community, we will come down with relentless force on anybody who snatches one of our kids, kills them and chops them up into pieces.
this is difficult to argue against. Could i push the button/perform the injection? Prolly not.
-
well nobody is asking you to push the button cc, im not sure whether i could either.
-
I think that arguing the deterrent effect of capital-punishment is a fallacious argument. That would be a good argument if you could convince me that jail is a deterrence at all.
We lock up rapists…did it stop people from raping?
We lock up arsonists…did it stop people from committing arson?By the deterrence arguement, it would make sense to do away with the entire prison system completely, since it’s obvious that it hasn’t stopped people from committing the crimes.
-
Guest,
Explain to me why the majority of the population does not commit crime? Personally, I don’t think its a big moral problem. We all know what happens when anarchy ensues, theft, looting, rape. Read the book Lord of the Flies?
Why do the above not happen on a large scale? Because people are afraid of prison.
Suggested Topics
